USA Today editorial: This Libya mess sure does look like incompetence

posted at 10:01 am on October 2, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Has the national media finally decided to react to the false narrative peddled to it by the Obama administration on the assassination of a US Ambassador and the sacking of a consulate in Benghazi? Last night, CNN began using the term “cover-up,” and today’s editorial in USA Today wonders whether anyone in this administration knows what’s going on at all:

Three weeks after an attack in Libya killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, we now know that it did not spring from a spontaneous protest, spurred by an anti-Muslim video, as the Obama administration originally described it. In fact, every aspect of the early account — peddled most prominently by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice — has unraveled.

Spontaneous? Hardly. The administration acknowledges that Ambassador Chris Stevens died in an organized terrorist attack, likely mounted by an Islamic extremist group and an al-Qaeda affiliate.

Despite all those signals, the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi relied for protection on the young Libyan government and a small band of mostly private contract guards, according to news accounts. Fewer than 10 armed men, both Americans and Libyans, were in the compound when the attack began with gunfire and grenades on the 9/11 anniversary.

The Christian Science Monitor also wrote last night that this calls Barack Obama’s competence into question, although they tempered their analysis with the suggestion that this isn’t the Iranian hostage crisis redux:

“There are vulnerabilities [for Obama], for sure, that flow from the latest series of events. The questions that are resonating are about competency and whether there was too much nonchalance … about the security of our diplomats and our diplomatic missions,” says Mr. Miller, now a Middle East expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

Calling this new vulnerability on foreign policy “a clear shift in focus” on an issue where Obama seemed previously almost unassailable, Miller says, “Does it limit the president? Yes. But can it cost him the election? No.”

Until the Benghazi attack, Obama was considered to have greatly improved Democrats‘ standing with the public on issues of national security. He pledged to get Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and he did, he ordered many more drone attacks on militants in Pakistan than President George W. Bush did, and perhaps most important, a number of potentially devastating attacks on the US were foiled. …

But Benghazi casts doubts on the president’s preparedness for the uncertainties resulting from upheaval in the Middle East, says Miller. Moreover, he adds, the administration has a “messaging problem” in that there was a “clear effort at painting these events … in a way to make the administration’s response look more favorable.”

It’s clearly more than a “messaging problem.” Four Americans are dead, and as USA Today points out, it’s not as though no one could have predicted an attack on the Benghazi consulate. For one thing, it had been attacked before, in June of this year. The fall of Moammar Qaddafi, engineered in no small part by Obama himself, left a power vacuum in eastern Libya that allowed radical Islamist terror networks such as al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia to operate openly, even in the Benghazi region. And last but not least, the attack occurred on the anniversary of 9/11.

Why wasn’t the administration prepared to secure Ambassador Stevens and the consulate? How could they only have less than ten armed men defending that diplomatic mission on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in that particular corner of the world? And why did the White House, despite designating it a terrorist attack within the first 24 hours, spend more than a week afterward denying the obvious and lying about the nature of the attack?

One of the people in my Twitter stream (I can’t recall who now) remarked last week that it’s better to have incompetence than dishonesty in the White House. Unfortunately, those come as a pair, as we have seen in the aftermath of this terrorist attack.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

The fall of Moammar Qaddafi, engineered in no small part by Obama himself, left a power vacuum in eastern Libya that allowed radical Islamist terror networks such as al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia to operate openly, even in the Benghazi region.

A power vacuum that hopenchange couldn’t fill. Utopian and fallacious presumptions about how the world works left Ambassador Stevens’ neck on the block and Al Qaeda was ready and willing to take a swipe at it.

A decade ago, the U.S. generally closed missions in dangerous spots, but the Obama administration has continued a push, started by President George W. Bush, to keep missions open in such hot spots as Iraq and Afghanistan to pursue American interests.

USAToday and CNN are very left wing. I suspect that they can no longer deny the obvious so they want to get it out of the way well before the election. If they have their way, this issue will not snowball but will quietly be packed away.

Moreover, he adds, the administration has a “messaging problem” in that there was a “clear effort at painting these events … in a way to make the administration’s response look more favorable.”

Cover-ups are now messaging problems? Seriously, Susan Rice went on all those talk shows and lied her ass off. That isn’t a messaging problem it is deceit. The public should be able to get the truth (i.e. the message) from its government without having to parse out the lies uttered by senior officials including the POTUS.

Here’s the interesting part…the fire was started inside a locked room adjoining one of the private prayer rooms in the mosque. I’ve been inside the mosque a number of times over the years, just a couple miles up the road. Not generally open to infidels above the first floor.

The fire was not started by some passing infidel, it was probably started by someone with access to the private prayer rooms, normally locked…hence, a Moslem.

Why would a Moslem set fire to one of the largest mosques in the United States?

Rice will go out and straighten it out…Hillary will tell us what really happened, because it was so vital that they could not even tell us what actually happened, as they worked behind the scenes to sort this out, and certain secret things had to be done through clandestine meetings, and we the public had to be kept in the dark for the safety of all of our other ambassadors.
We had to pretend it was spontaneous, to throw the real cause off track, and force them to come out in the open…it was all a plan, developed and put in place by that mastermind, Obama…

Obama doesn’t know the difference between ‘outsourcing’ and ‘offshoring’. Perhaps he also doesn’t know the difference between ‘bumps in the road’ and ‘road kill’. Because that’s how he is treating the murder of our ambassador – as road kill.

I have tried to be charitable to our President. After all, he is President and elections do have consequences. But as his designs have been frustrated in that large parts of the nation do not jump at his command (unlike the empowered clueless from his community organizer days), his frustration is turning him evil. For the preservation of his Soul, he needs to get out of that office.

Why wasn’t the administration prepared to secure Ambassador Stevens and the consulate? How could they only have less than ten armed men defending that diplomatic mission on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in that particular corner of the world?

Why was the Ambassador in Benghazi without armored vehicles? They have plenty of them in the states, and overseas. There is no reason that they shouldn’t have had at least three. It is Diplomatic Security’s job to ensure the safety of the Ambassador. The Regional Security Officer has the final say on security issues. Who was the RSO for Benghazi, or Libya? I used to train the DS agents in high threat protection for State, so I know that they would NEVER, NEVER would have let the Ambassador to there without security, American.

Why were none of the men who were supposed to defend the compound not killed? Glen and Rory were in the country doing othere work; they weren’t even supposed to be protecting the Ambassador, they were there looking for shoulder fired rockets. They went to help out because that is who they were, and what they did. What happened to the other security personnel who were assigned to that mission?

In my opinion, Diplomatic Security, Overseas Building Operations, Secretary of State, and the President need to answer for this.

Another important question is why was the Ambassador even at that location on 9/11, since he feared for his safety?

kagai on October 2, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Because he was dedicated, and did not want to leave his people behind…by all accounts this was a good, brave, honorable servant and man. A great loss, because Hillary and Obama did not take security briefings seriously.
As President Bush said, “We need to make only one mistake and they win”…Obama and Hillary made many mistakes, so it was inevitable that the one killed would be a dedicated man.

The arrogance of this administration is beyond pall…the blood of this man, and the fine men who valiantly tried to protect him is directly on Hillary and Obama…they had all the information needed to protect this man. His job was an Ambassador, and good men do not leave their post, and let their fellow men die in his place.

A power vacuum that hopenchange couldn’t fill. Utopian and fallacious presumptions about how the world works left Ambassador Stevens’ neck on the block and Al Qaeda was ready and willing to take a swipe at it.

Incompetence, followed by dishonesty and more dishonesty…….

Life is hard champ, it’s even harder if you’re stupid.

ted c on October 2, 2012 at 10:07 AM

The only thing you left out is the EVIL, Ted. The evil just oozes from this whole regime, and I can’t believe that half the country doesn’t feel it.

One of the people in my Twitter stream (I can’t recall who now) remarked last week that it’s better to have incompetence than dishonesty in the White House. Unfortunately, those come as a pair, as we have seen in the aftermath of this terrorist attack.

It’s sad, Ed, that your Twitter friend can’t consider the possibility (probability?) that this White House is not merely “incompetent,” but both dishonest and deliberately destructive.

Barack Obama does not have benign intentions, and I think we should all sober up and get wise to that reality. He hates America and he wants to bring this country to its knees, domestically and internationally.

He is the enemy within, no matter how many genteel sensibilities that premise might offend.

Hmmmph. It looks like the MSM is once again frantically cleaning up after Obama, doing his PR work for him, stepping in to repair the botch made by Hilary, Susan Rice, and the White House “Press Secretary” made. These articles try to expunge the mess by saying OK, we made a mistake, we tried obfuscation when asked what really happened, it didn’t work, but honest, people, we’re all sorry as hell, and now that’s over with, let’s all pull together and get Obama re-elected.

In short, the only thing the MSM is coming to realize is that the Obama propaganda apparatus has failed miserably in this case, so that once again the poor old MSM has to jump in and rake Obama’s chestnuts from the fire.

Barack Obama does not have benign intentions, and I think we should all sober up and get wise to that reality. He hates America and he wants to bring this country to its knees, domestically and internationally.

He is the enemy within, no matter how many genteel sensibilities that premise might offend.

Until the Benghazi attack, Obama was considered to have greatly improved Democrats‘ standing with the public on issues of national security. He pledged to get Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and he did, he ordered many more drone attacks on militants in Pakistan than President George W. Bush did, and perhaps most important, a number of potentially devastating attacks on the US were foiled.

All these other things flowed from continuation of policies initiated under Bush. Benghazi is of Obama’s own making. Incompetance indeed.

It’s not Obama’s fault that the consulate was attacked or that the economy is in the gutter. It’s the idiots that he has selected to work for him…the initial decision makers, the consultants and self-proclaimed ‘experts’ who coach him because he surely isn’t equipped to make any decisions on his own.

The sign of a great leader (CEO) is to pick and place the BEST people in the industry to positions where they can put their experience and brains to work. You do not survive in private industry (Bain Capital) if you make repeated idiodic decisions….you get AXED. The same rule should apply to government and you can bet that in Romney’s Administration, it will.

The warning was there. Obama ignored or didn’t read it. He’s responsible – in the way that the left accused GW of for 911 (if you read that PDB, and were to act on it, you would have had the FBI staking out truck rentals and fertilizer, considering all the major terrorist acts that took out large buildings to that time had been truck bombs…)

OT: but related to security. 3 Border patrol agents responded to a sensor activation on the Border (Tucson Sector) last night. Ended up in a shoot out. 1 dead, 1 injured. Requesting prayers for the families.

For crying out loud…of course not…that’s been obvious for quite some time now. The warnings for this attack were so clearly indicated it becomes reasonable to question if the policy of the administration dictated that no action be taken, even when faced with an imminent onslaught. And if this was the position of our government, and was applied at Benghazi, where else will it be applied? Or was it just applied in this case for another reason?

The concept that what Obama did with his support of the Arab Spring uprisings was incompetence or stupidity, is naive.

Consider carefully which nations we has chosen to become involved with over the last three years. There is a saying, “Better the enemy you know than the enemy you do not”. Mubarak, though not a really good guy, was most certainly not a threat to the U.S., had cooperated with us for decades and was not a sponsor of terrorism in the region. Obama helped get him destroyed, and now the Muslim Brotherhood holds power in that nation. Ghadafi, an enemy for sure, but an impotent one who dismantled his offensive systems to make sure we didn’t see him as a threat. Nothing like an ally, but now, in his place, a group with no fear of what the U.S. might do to Libya, because they have no real vested interest in the people there. They will use it politically if we attack, they will use the complicit anti-American media to make us the bad guys if we do anything but appease.

Two of the least dangerous nations in the region as far as U.S. foreign policy is concerned, and in less than a year, with Obama’s help, they have turned into fountainheads of major trouble for us and the region. These were not random choices, these were orchestrated. Follow the money.

He pledged to get Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and he did, he ordered many more drone attacks on militants in Pakistan than President George W. Bush did, and perhaps most important, a number of potentially devastating attacks on the US were foiled. …

As a military or political strategy drone attacks have a significant weakness: it does nothing to provide actionable intelligence. If we don’t have boots on the ground taking prisoners and then extracting intelligence we are more in the dark about future plans and specific events. We’re paying for that lack of intelligence by being surprised by events, caught off-guard by the actions of governments, losing track of who and where the bad-guys are, and losing track of critical weapons, e.g. chemical weapons from Libya.

I truly feel it is not “incometence” … but a fully intentional work, done to set up the downfall of USA, by the traitor usurper. All his actions were obviously pointed towards this single end. Until we see that and do something about this, there is no hope.

You can commit a deliberate act which amounts to incompetence in the situation.

As I see it, there are basically three alternatives as to why Benghazi happened: (1) Obama and Hillary failed to understand the situation and put Stevens and the others in harm’s way without understanding what they were doing (incompetence) or (2) They understood the situation more or less but put the people in harm’s way any (incompetence bordering on malice) or (3) they understood the situation and sent Stevens there to die (malice).

what if it was part of his Plan to destroy the USA? Secret data was taken and four Americans murdered. Why? Odumba is funding these terrorists in Lybia that are killing our soldiers in Afganstan! The administration knew exactly what was going to happen and supported it some people think. Odumba is a mudslum and does not give a rat’s a$$ a out saving American. He wants the Mudslums to control the world and he is funding this with our money!
AMericans had better wake up fast. It is almost too late to save
our freedom and country.